The Left has an outsized influence in the West via their control of much of the Academy and much of the MSM, which allows them to establish the acceptable bounds of discourse (Political Correctness, Hate Crimes, etc.) Further, the Left's Post-Modern narrative is now the baseline for Europe and threatens to become the accepted framework for discourse in America. Their ideas reside at the core of the Democratic Party and and exert tremendous influence upon our ruling elites in both parties.

Recently David Thompson posted an interview with Stephen Hicks discussing his work. The interview is well worth your time. It establishes some of the fundamentals of the current iteration of Post-Modernism in the Academia and its spill-over effects in politics. Here is an excerpt from David's interview (all highlighting and emphases are his):

DT: You say, “The postmodernists have rejected reason, and along with it concern for evidence and consistency,” and I suspect some readers will find this hard to accept. It sounds outlandish. But, as you point out in the book, Lyotard explicitly rejected notions of truth and clarity as being synonymous with “prisons and prohibitions.” Foucault shared these sentiments, claiming “reason is the ultimate language of madness,” suggesting that nothing should constrain our beliefs and political preferences, not even logic or evidence. Frank Lentricchia, another left-wing theorist, said the postmodern movement “seeks not to find the foundation and conditions of truth, but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.” And Stanley Fish, who rushed to defendSocial Text after the Sokal hoax, had previously argued that theorising and deconstruction “relieves me of the obligation to be right … and demands only that I be interesting.” There is a pattern here.

SH: It is hard to accept the rejection of reason, especially if you’re outside of academic circles, but it’s no secret inside. You nicely quote some representative statements - it’s also worth noting that the leading pomo thinkers cite Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Existentialists as their forerunners, and the rejection of reason runs deep in those lines of thought too.

DT: A while ago, I quoted a chunk of Derrida prose that’s hilarious nonsense. I’ve defied several Derrida enthusiasts to explain what this particular passage means, or might mean if you squint and tilt your head, but so far no-one has managed to tell me. And the essayfrom which the quote is taken has numerous, equally baffling, paragraphs which could be arranged in almost any order with no perceptible difference. Much of the essay is wilfully incomprehensible, like some Dadaist prank that no-one dares to mention. And there seems to be a taboo against even entertaining the possibility that such a thing could happen, and happen quite often, with little if any protest from colleagues and students. It’s unthinkable that such a con could be perpetrated, and maybe that’s why it goes on happening.

More recently, in a piece about the art world’s reliance on postmodernist rhetoric – what’s often called “art bollocks” - I pointed out that the artist Aliza Shvarts was mouthing opaque gibberish while pretending to be profound. The text she’d written and presented as a key part of her art was clumsy, incoherent and often simply meaningless. It was a kind of verbal flailing and rhetorical camouflage. (It’s difficult to determine exactly how wrong an unintelligible analysis is.) One postmodernist commenter took exception to my criticism - first by accusing me of arguing things I clearly wasn’t arguing, then by saying I was holding “entrenched positions” in which “aesthetic values” (in scare quotes), “scientific reality/clarity” (again, in scare quotes) and my own “reliance on logical consistency” (ditto) were obstaclesto comprehension. Specifically, they were obstacles to comprehending Shvarts’ alleged (but oddly unspecified) “arguments of power, control [and] dominance.” The tone was, of course, condescending and self-satisfied. I’m guessing the commenter in question didn’t pause to consider the possibility that one might find pomo bafflegab objectionable precisely because it represents the “power, control [and] dominance” of what amounts to a priestly caste.

SH: A lot of what you’re getting from your various commentators seems like third-raters playing the game, so it’s probably not worth focusing on them - instead of attending to the lessons they’re learning from the leading pomo strategists.

Another clue is that some postmodernists prefer “neo-pragmatist.” Rorty, Fish, and many of the legal postmodernists sometimes use that label. Pragmatism as a school of thought thinks of knowledge, truth, and certainty as chimerical quests and suggests that we focus our efforts on what works. In politicized forms, then, postmodernists will behave like the stereotypical unscrupulous lawyer trying to win the case: truth and justice aren’t the point; instead using any rhetorical tool or trick that works is the point. Sometimes contradictory lines of argument work. Sometimes your audience’s desire to belong to the in-group can be played upon. Sometimes appearing absolutely authoritative works to camouflage a weak case. Sometimes condescension works. And so on.

[It is important to note that early, more diffident Post-Modernism presented a very useful integration of ideas about subjectivism and reality; that is, we must necessarily filter reality through our individual perceptual apparatus which creates a model for reality and therefore should remain skeptical of assertions of "Truth." The later Post-Modernists, in the service of their political ideologies, extended the concept to devalue the concept of reality itself. In their conception, arising out of the crisis of the failure of Marxism, reality is dictated by the powerful for their own benefits at the expense of the victimized.]

Stephen Hicks and David Thompson are interested in describing how the Post-Modernists distort and corrupt our discourse. If reality is only what the powerful construct then it follows that the powerful, in the service of a "greater good", by virtue of their nobility of mien and elevated moral standing as champions of the oppressed, have the right and obligation to create a more congenial reality. The multiple attacks on "white male privilege" follow from just such a political philosophy (which, as noted, is a corruption of what was valuable in Post-Modernism when it was a limited theory, rather than the all encompassing theoretical structure it has degenerated into.)

Richard Landes has added depth and complexity to the David Thompson-Stephen Hicks interview in his post, PoMo Unpeeled: David Thompson talks with Stephen Hicks. Professor Landes's area of expertise is on Millennial movements and he adroitly places Post-Modernism into context of the failure (denied) of Marxism. I will return to this topic shortly and will attempt to add another layer of explanation to the mix.

The Left has an outsized influence in the West via their control of much of the Academy and much of the MSM, which allows them to establish the acceptable bounds of discourse (Political Correctness, Hate Crimes, etc.) Further, the Left's Post-Modern narrative is now the baseline for Europe and threatens to become the accepted framework for discourse in America. Their ideas reside at the core of the Democratic Party and and exert tremendous influence upon our ruling elites in both parties.

Recently David Thompson posted an interview with Stephen Hicks discussing his work. The interview is well worth your time. It establishes some of the fundamentals of the current iteration of Post-Modernism in the Academia and its spill-over effects in politics. Here is an excerpt from David's interview (all highlighting and emphases are his):

DT: You say, “The postmodernists have rejected reason, and along with it concern for evidence and consistency,” and I suspect some readers will find this hard to accept. It sounds outlandish. But, as you point out in the book, Lyotard explicitly rejected notions of truth and clarity as being synonymous with “prisons and prohibitions.” Foucault shared these sentiments, claiming “reason is the ultimate language of madness,” suggesting that nothing should constrain our beliefs and political preferences, not even logic or evidence. Frank Lentricchia, another left-wing theorist, said the postmodern movement “seeks not to find the foundation and conditions of truth, but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.” And Stanley Fish, who rushed to defendSocial Text after the Sokal hoax, had previously argued that theorising and deconstruction “relieves me of the obligation to be right … and demands only that I be interesting.” There is a pattern here.

SH: It is hard to accept the rejection of reason, especially if you’re outside of academic circles, but it’s no secret inside. You nicely quote some representative statements - it’s also worth noting that the leading pomo thinkers cite Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Existentialists as their forerunners, and the rejection of reason runs deep in those lines of thought too.

DT: A while ago, I quoted a chunk of Derrida prose that’s hilarious nonsense. I’ve defied several Derrida enthusiasts to explain what this particular passage means, or might mean if you squint and tilt your head, but so far no-one has managed to tell me. And the essayfrom which the quote is taken has numerous, equally baffling, paragraphs which could be arranged in almost any order with no perceptible difference. Much of the essay is wilfully incomprehensible, like some Dadaist prank that no-one dares to mention. And there seems to be a taboo against even entertaining the possibility that such a thing could happen, and happen quite often, with little if any protest from colleagues and students. It’s unthinkable that such a con could be perpetrated, and maybe that’s why it goes on happening.

More recently, in a piece about the art world’s reliance on postmodernist rhetoric – what’s often called “art bollocks” - I pointed out that the artist Aliza Shvarts was mouthing opaque gibberish while pretending to be profound. The text she’d written and presented as a key part of her art was clumsy, incoherent and often simply meaningless. It was a kind of verbal flailing and rhetorical camouflage. (It’s difficult to determine exactly how wrong an unintelligible analysis is.) One postmodernist commenter took exception to my criticism - first by accusing me of arguing things I clearly wasn’t arguing, then by saying I was holding “entrenched positions” in which “aesthetic values” (in scare quotes), “scientific reality/clarity” (again, in scare quotes) and my own “reliance on logical consistency” (ditto) were obstaclesto comprehension. Specifically, they were obstacles to comprehending Shvarts’ alleged (but oddly unspecified) “arguments of power, control [and] dominance.” The tone was, of course, condescending and self-satisfied. I’m guessing the commenter in question didn’t pause to consider the possibility that one might find pomo bafflegab objectionable precisely because it represents the “power, control [and] dominance” of what amounts to a priestly caste.

SH: A lot of what you’re getting from your various commentators seems like third-raters playing the game, so it’s probably not worth focusing on them - instead of attending to the lessons they’re learning from the leading pomo strategists.

Another clue is that some postmodernists prefer “neo-pragmatist.” Rorty, Fish, and many of the legal postmodernists sometimes use that label. Pragmatism as a school of thought thinks of knowledge, truth, and certainty as chimerical quests and suggests that we focus our efforts on what works. In politicized forms, then, postmodernists will behave like the stereotypical unscrupulous lawyer trying to win the case: truth and justice aren’t the point; instead using any rhetorical tool or trick that works is the point. Sometimes contradictory lines of argument work. Sometimes your audience’s desire to belong to the in-group can be played upon. Sometimes appearing absolutely authoritative works to camouflage a weak case. Sometimes condescension works. And so on.

[It is important to note that early, more diffident Post-Modernism presented a very useful integration of ideas about subjectivism and reality; that is, we must necessarily filter reality through our individual perceptual apparatus which creates a model for reality and therefore should remain skeptical of assertions of "Truth." The later Post-Modernists, in the service of their political ideologies, extended the concept to devalue the concept of reality itself. In their conception, arising out of the crisis of the failure of Marxism, reality is dictated by the powerful for their own benefits at the expense of the victimized.]

Stephen Hicks and David Thompson are interested in describing how the Post-Modernists distort and corrupt our discourse. If reality is only what the powerful construct then it follows that the powerful, in the service of a "greater good", by virtue of their nobility of mien and elevated moral standing as champions of the oppressed, have the right and obligation to create a more congenial reality. The multiple attacks on "white male privilege" follow from just such a political philosophy (which, as noted, is a corruption of what was valuable in Post-Modernism when it was a limited theory, rather than the all encompassing theoretical structure it has degenerated into.)

Richard Landes has added depth and complexity to the David Thompson-Stephen Hicks interview in his post, PoMo Unpeeled: David Thompson talks with Stephen Hicks. Professor Landes's area of expertise is on Millennial movements and he adroitly places Post-Modernism into context of the failure (denied) of Marxism. I will return to this topic shortly and will attempt to add another layer of explanation to the mix.